If money were no object PPL training

Flyer59 wrote:

How is that?

You can use FCL.800 rating with any EASA licence. Well, at least aeroplane (LAPL(A), PPL(A)) and sailplane (LAPL(S), SPL) ones. With the rest, it’s more of a theoretical possibility that probably wasn’t considered during drafting (judging by the wording of (a)), but shouldn’t be a problem, the general principle is there (the problem would be finding an instructor and a machine).

Airborne_Again wrote:

That is very similar to my experience from taking the PPL in 1984.

He he, mine was 1983

Stephan_Schwab wrote:

Dispelling some of the myths would be helpful and allow them to pick it up themselves. But then there are pilots who reassure the myths.

Absolutely. myths are more damaging to GA than any other thing. The next “best” is incompetent pilots who damage our reputation either with airspace violations, incompetent behaviour at airports or unnecessary accidents.

Stephan_Schwab wrote:

One of my instructors actually said “IFR actually allowed me to fly for real” and he was referring to planning and dealing with airspace structures.

I agree. But it depends strongly where you are based. I have a good friend in Graz, south of the Alps, and he flies VFR much more than I ever did even in this season now. I reckon there are areas where VFR is more than enough, but IFR certainly opens new perspectives. Apart from the fact that IFR will get rid of most of the airspace worries.

Martin wrote:

At LAPL/ PPL level, you have EASA to deal with.

Which part of EASA FCL prevents a FTO from doing cross country training? That is not the problem, the problem is there are other “must do” things which cost money which then doesn’t get spent in doing cross country flights.

For me, to get students to do maybe a few extra things which will help them is to have FI’s who promote them and affordable schools. Affordable schools mean “cheap” airplanes. That is feasible, but requires a bit of a compromise. People complain about “shagged” airplanes and about “expensive” at the same time, but I see very well that by running cheap to run airplanes in good condition and with adequate maintenance and equipment one CAN successfully run a flight school with moderate pricing.

Martin wrote:

You don’t need PPL for aerobatics.

I didn’t know you could look into the future?

You cannot do aerobatics in a microlight or a VLA. PPL, LAPL what’s the difference anyway. It’s either used as a step to get PPL from microlight or as a way of flying with “reduced” medical when getting older.

What I meant was that PPL already is way too complex today. All you can do with it is day VFR in a SEP. You can do that simpler, faster, cheaper in a much more capable modern microlight. This will satisfy maybe 80-90% of all recreational flying, and you can fly all you want with a minimal added marginal cost per hour compared with flying an old spam can. Things need to be simpler, not more complicated like adding even more into the PPL. Then for those interested in more, like IFR or aerobatics, twins or whatever else can do this by doing the appropriate training.

Well if you are looking for an ideal aircraft then you would struggle to beat the slingsby T67M.

Handles almost as nice as a chippy. A good instrument platform and a reasonably capable aerobatic aircraft.

I think if I was doing it again I would gain a microlight licence first then and SSEA rating and do an IMC rating as well.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

But it depends strongly where you are based. I have a good friend in Graz, south of the Alps, and he flies VFR much more than I ever did even in this season now. I reckon there are areas where VFR is more than enough, but IFR certainly opens new perspectives.

In places with weather and mountains, IFR is no magic formula that enables anything. You will get around much better VFR. In these places IFR requires at least a de-iced DA-42 and a perfectly plowed runway, and all you can do is to fly to another perfectly plowed runway.

Which part of EASA FCL prevents a FTO from doing cross country training?

One thing which is really nice and which is possible in the USA is to do a PPL during the course of a trip around the USA. I know of two pilots (David here is one of them) who got their IR in such a way, over there. But here the schools cannot do that. For example somebody tried to get permission to do IR training partly in France and the UK CAA refused.

It would obviously cost a lot more but plenty of people would be OK with that and it would make the process a lot more interesting.

EASA FCL does not block this but the national CAA does in the way it licenses the school(s), in this case.

In places with weather and mountains, IFR is no magic formula that enables anything. You will get around much better VFR

I think if you actually had an IR your view would change drastically Having an IR does not make the clouds part but it does away with airspace rules and related stuff. And one can fly above the clouds a lot more easily, and more often more legally It’s a huge eye-opener. And I have been VFR as far as I have been IFR (LGST Crete) so I know both sides of the coin pretty well.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Which part of EASA FCL prevents a FTO from doing cross country training?

I wasn’t talking about cross-country at all, but you mentioned limiting theory, old school radio navigation, focusing instead on GPS, this sort of thing.

LeSving wrote:

You cannot do aerobatics in a microlight or a VLA. PPL, LAPL what’s the difference anyway.

It sounded to me like you were listing reasons for PPL instead of LAPL. Aerobatics in Annex II machines would have to be regulated on national level and it’s a possibility.

You can do that simpler, faster, cheaper in a much more capable modern microlight.

How many ULs (I don’t like to use the British term microlight) can comfortably carry two plus baggage? And you couldn’t take kids for sight seeing, for example. They might be cheaper, but more capable? More capable than what? LAPL is enough to fly for example SR-22. Faster? You can add a night rating, aerobatics rating, mountain rating, etc. And when you decide you want an IR, you can convert it into a PPL (I think it’s 10 hours dual, don’t know what’s the syllabus, whether the hours can be used for training towards some rating – that would make it really interesting). I’m not saying ULs are not interesting.

Peter wrote:

And I have been VFR as far as I have been IFR (LGST Crete) so I know both sides of the coin pretty well.

OK, but cruising along the coast of the Mediterranean in the summer is nothing like flying in the Scandinavian mountains in the “winter” (12 months of the year). I have no doubt IFR is extremely beneficial for long distance touring. It’s just that where I live that benefit does not really open up unless I have a capable aircraft like a DA-42 as minimum. Anything less and I would be constrained to nice weather flying in the summer, and nice summer weather is also nice VFR weather. Can I afford a DA-42? The answer is no, I cannot. And even so, a DA-42 is not very practical for short field flying. An IFR equipped H120 would be just perfect, but even more way beyond my financial capabilities. I better stick with what I can afford and what I can handle.

I think that most current PPL syllabi are fine. You get the basics, then you decide what you would like to do next and then you move forward with that. I think that cost gets in the way of advanced training through schools. It is understandable that a flying school would like to stay in business, but the situations I outline below show what I mean. In my opinion a very good solution is to fly lots of hours at an affordable price, i.e. a new PPL should get an aircraft they can afford to fly a lot, or buy a share in an aircraft which is cheap. Add in a freelance instructor and the problem is solved.

For example, I owned Aeronca Champ with floats skis and wheels whilst living in Canada. The operating cost for that is perhaps £40/hr all in. If I wanted any further training, I could make friends with a mentor and do it for free :-), or I could pay a freelance instructor £15-40/hr depending on their skills and the task at hand (so lets say an average of £70 all in). Thus, advanced training was easy, accessible, and relatively cheap!! With a bit of circumspection, combined with the low aircraft rates, one could to a lot of learning on your own. At this type of pricing, I didn’t hesitate to think of flying ‘10s to 100s’ of hours to get some practice and figure it out :-).

Recently, I had a hankering to do some ski flying in Switzerland or France. My research led me to a couple of schools for the mountain/glacier rating, and I saw rates for the instructor and aircraft in the order of 390-400 euros (£281) an hour. Yikes, I certainly won’t be doing a bunch of hours at that rate… in fact maybe I won’t do any at all. I think I foresee a trip back to North America in my future… you can fly a helicopter for that price!

Another example of expensive flying schools was in relation to my instrument rating. Using the school’s simulator (£85/hr) was twice as expensive as flying my own plane (a PA28 at about £44/hr)! How can it cost more to stay on the ground than in the air?!!

Get a plane (or a share), become involved in the flying you would like to do, and you will figure it out!